While I believe the spirit of the rule would allow for flexibility with respect to phone calls and/or texting while the vehicle is not in a lane of traffic AND is not moving, I believe the intent of the rule should be clear and simple – DO NOT ENGAGE IN PHONE CALLS AND/OR TEXTING WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE.

If the cost of injury or death isn’t enough to deter drivers, then perhaps imprisonment, steep fines, or awards for injury/death/damages or any combination of these will help greatly reduce the number of accidents caused by inattention due to cell phone calls and/or texting.

I’m realistic enough to know that 100% will not be achieved. However, for those who think they can beat the odds/flout the law, the price should be steep when the Piper demands his due.

Again, the simplest of questions should quickly end the debate of excuses – “while operating a motor vehicle, is any cell phone call or text message worth the risk of injury or death to yourself or other people?”

I find it iteresting that most drivers think they’re able to talk or text and drive safely at the same time. I guess the MetroLink train crash in Southern California that killed over 20 people – you know the one I’m referring to, where the train engineer was texting – doesn’t count since he was in a train and not a motorized vehicle. I read somewhere that within the next five years, car manufacturers are going to be building cars that won’t allow drivers to talk and/or text and drive. And on a scale of 1 to 10, aren’t 99.99999% of those phone calls next to “totally unimportant”?

Technology should not be used as a crutch to make up for lack of planning. If a CMV breaks down or needs some other kind of assistance, than fine. A BRIEF communication is all that’s needed. Cell phones and texting should not be utilized to occupy the “dead time” between fueling/rest/meal stops. Those are the times to take care of those “ALL IMPORTANT” phone calls and text messages.

A person driving a motor vehicle should be doing just that – driving the motor vehicle. Let me put it in black and white (or yellow and white, as the case may be). ALL drivers are governed by paint (lane markers) and light (Red, Green, and Yellow). And why do we obey these? The answer is simple. THE CONSEQUENCES ARE ALMOST ALWAYS SEVERE AND IMMEDIATE! I don’t believe any cell phone call and/or text message is worth dying for!

Quote: ” CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle drivers who text were 23 times more likely to have a “safety critical event” than non-texters.”End Quote
While I find this statistic interesting, since this is a rule FMCSA is trying to shove on CMV operators, since that is their only jurisdiction, multiple other studies have shown, that as a whole, any driver that is distracted by texting is anywhere from 20 to 50% more likely to have a critical incident, then non-texting drivers. Other studies have also shown, that in incident involving a CMV and a non-CMV, that over 80% of the time, the non-CMV operator is at fault. But, because the general motoring public would scream murder and boot the congressman and senator out of office at the next election if they messed with their cell phones and texting priviledge, the government as a whole, will only pick on the one segment of highway users that they have ultimate jurisdiction over, and the is CMV operators. Note for those not in the know, the federal government has very limited power, if any at all, over the general motoring public. Laws and Enforcement of those laws on the General public falls on the individual states.
While there are some bad actors as they say in the trucking industry, the majority are safer and more concious of their surroundings then the average general driver.

In 2004,… the driver failed to move out of the low-clearance lane while talking on a cellphone.” This “accident” happened in 2004! He was TALKING on a CELLPHONE!
IMO, “Turn Off Cell B/4 Driving!” should have become law long B/4 NOW!! All these years have gone by, hundreds of LIVES have been lost, & our society is just NOW starting to work on this issue? AND we think we need to start with small steps like banning TEXTING (& sometimes in just commercial vehicles?)?

SOMEHOW, we NEED to make “Turn Off Cell B/4 Driving!” become as common as fastening our seatbelts. The sooner, the better & the more lives will be saved.

The quickest, easiest solution is to take the “Click It or Ticket” laws already in force (after much hard work in the ’60′s) & simply ADD the provision “Click Off Cell!”

Since, in reality, I know the government can’t (or won’t) do anything in a simple, easy, straight-forward manner, I offer the next best solution: EACH of us MUST spread this important safety message to AS MANY DRIVERS as we possibly can, as QUICKLY as we can, in order to make our roads safer for ourselves & our loved ones TODAY!

To help each of you do so, I offer this fun, inexpensive, quick, effective answer to reaching those people that THINK THEY are in the 2% – 2 1/2% of drivers who MAY be able to SAFELY(?) drive while talking on a cell phone:

Print out 24 pages x 30 = 720 “Turn Off Cell B/4 Driving!” stickers to stick directly to cell phones, drivers’ side visors, to wear; to share 1 @ a time, in strips of 10, or in sheets of 30; or to give to children so they can participate in this safety campaign by giving stickers to neighbors, friends & their parents, & their teachers. Be sure to save the final page of 30 to print out the site directions so others can go print their OWN stickers!

In this way EACH one of you can reach 720 people PLUS 30 x 720 = 21,600 MORE! THINK about this: each of THOSE can do that, too!!

We WILL save lives NOW! Please don’t wait for the government to do this for you…

To help more: On Facebook join group Drive Safely: Don’t Use Your Cell Phone While Driving (NOT the same as Drive Safely, another group I joined) or see Facebook PAGE: Turn Off Cell B/4 Driving.

If you have read this far, I know you are interested in this issue. Now please, DO SOMETHING to stop these unsafe conditions on our roads B/4 we lose MORE people to what we can NOT call “ACCIDENTS” as they ARE PREVENTABLE!!

A driver in California recently caused an accident because he spilled his coffee. Another driver almost wrecked because he was trying to light a cigarette. The bottom line is that ANY distraction while driving a car can cause an accident. Where do we draw the line? Also, there are millions of people out there who are completely capable of using their cell phone AND driving, at the same time. Are we proposing that they should be punished, for the inabilities of others? For people who spend much of their time in the car, this time might be their only chance to communicate with loved ones, do business, or make important calls. If they are physically capable to use their phones safely while driving, why restrict their freedoms?

It’s true that any distraction can cause an accident. The agency decided that texting was particularly unsafe, in part on the basis of the VTTI study that we reference lower on the page. Click the graphic to get a sense of the safety risks associated with different activities.
A question: do you think that this rule imposes an undue burden on personal communication? What alternative restrictions on texting, if any, would you propose to impose on professional drivers?

I am an advocate of “Turn Off Cell B/4 Driving!” & have been since 1/13/10.
In this short period of time, I’ve learned that accomplishing this nationwide will be slow & difficult. If only it would be as easy as taking the seatbelt “Click It or Ticket” laws passed in the 1960’s & adding “Click Off Cell!”!
We need to encourage drivers to look at the National Safety Council’s White Paper found at http://www.nsc.org/DistractedDrivingDocuments/Cognitive-Distraction-White-Paper.pdf
Any driver that glanced at this with “heart” (i.e. w/eyes open & willing to understand) would never drive while talking on a cell phone again. Every excuse I’ve ever heard a driver use when he/she THINKS “I am in the special 2-2.5% who can do this multitasking!” is blown apart because in a clear, scientific explanation the report shows the human brain is NOT CAPABLE of driving while talking on a cell phone.
Even the old “I can walk while chewing gum!” excuse is covered on page 7: Sure you really can because two different parts of the brain are being used; driving while talking on a cell phone requires the SIMULTANEOUS use of the SAME PARTS of the brain! You’ve heard this warning many times: DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS!!
All legislators should be required to look at this report BEFORE VOTING on Distracted Driving issues.

As far as implementing a corporate policy against operating electronic devices while driving a company vehicle, once you are out of sight of your supervisor, without enforcement, many employees are still just as likely to open up their laptop and pick up their cell phone.

Enforcement can come from various sources – national, state or local government (Patrol Officers), your supervisor. Another way to look at aiding enforcement is distraction prevention. By utilizing technological solutions such as GPS based software that prohibits use while vehicle is moving. Such programs exist for both laptops and cell phones.

Corporate liability is an issue here and unfortunately, employees can not always be trusted to follow the rules. By installing mandatory software on these devices, you can control their operation and thereby reduce driver distraction levels from electronic devices.

I agree that the law should apply to all drivers. Nonetheless, this is a good start. Whether or not the law is readily and easily enforced does not negate its value. Besides providing punitive measures for disobedience, the law also provides guidance about what society expects. So the statement of our expectations that no one shall engage in the distracting behaviors of text messaging while driving serves as fair warning. The inclusion of penalties for disobedience tells everyone about our degree of seriousness. The stiffer the penalties, the more serious we are. Furthermore, the difficulty of proactive enforcement does not devalue the consequential enforcement. In other words, although it may be difficult to effectively catch drivers in the act of text messaging, the ability of forensics to determine if text messaging was a factor in a traffic accident or violation has tremendous value especially when a law exists to issue a suitable penalty. After a significant number of citations are issued, and horror stories make the news, the word will travel that text messaging while driving has significant negative consequences. Usually its the combination of a law with teeth, effective marketing by interested policies, and a few significant horror stories that brings about the desired change in societal behavior. This was the formula for the transformation in society’s attitude towards and use of seat belts. The first step is the implementation of a well-written law with teeth. So I support the passing of a law that bans text messaging while driving as long as it has clear guidelines and suitable penalties. I wish it would apply to all drivers, but I understand the reasons for why the federal government is focusing on commercial drivers.

On page 14 of the VTTI study, the researchers explain how they came up with this data: they outfitted heavy trucks with both video cameras and a Data Analysis Reduction Tool that tracked driving behavior. Using these instruments, they were able to track “near misses.” I hope that answers your question.

Far too many people are killed and seriously injured on our roads and streets and it is become clear that driver inattention is one of the top contributing factors.

Other countries are having far greater success in reducing the number of driving related injuries and fatalities and one reason is they are very serious about removing the root causes of crashes and injuries, like texting while driving and drunk driving.

I don’t dispute the distraction factor. 10 Minutes on any highway in the country should offer enough proof for all but the most obtuse.

What I object to is the singling out of any particular group of drivers as the focus of another un-enforceable law. (or, shall we say, really only enforceable after the fact)

Truckers already face a huge pile of regulations that apply only to them, and not to other drivers on the road. In most cases, these regulations are at least tangentally appropriate given the nature of the vehicle driven.

In this case, however, the activity in question is one engaged in by drivers off all classes of vehicle. It seems to me to be more appropriate for the regulation or non-regulation to come at the state level, and cover ALL vehicle operators.

Further, acceptance of this as an FMCSA rule immediately also brings up the question: how would this be enforced? Short of stationing a DOT officer in the cab of every truck, it can’t be done – except as an after-the-fact determination via investigation into an accident.

In other words, such a rule will have little to no effect on highway safety, and will be most likely show an effect only in the post-collision legal proceedings.

For more information about why FMCSA has proposed to imposes regulations against commercial drivers, please see our next post called “Which Drivers are Covered.” After reading through this material, let the community know if your opinion has changed.

As to your comment about enforcement, you’ve identified one of the most difficult questions about this proposed regulation. Feel free to continue to discuss this question in the post called “Who & How of Enforcement.”

Personally, I don’t think there should be a law about txting while driving. The law are already on the books for injuring other people and their property. The law enforcers have more important things to do. There are REAL criminals in this country that don’t get very enough attention.

The Overview:

If the thought of drivers doing 65 mph on the interstate while reading their email or sending text messages makes you cringe, you’ll want to know more about a proposed new federal regulation. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration The agency proposing the EOBR rule (FMCSAFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule)) has just released a draft rule to control texting by commercial motor vehicle Any vehicle owned or used by a business (CMVCommercial Motor Vechicles) drivers. FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) is in charge of safety regulation for more than 7 million truck and bus operators nationwide. Texting, according to the agency, is a particularly dangerous form of distracted driving: In one recent study, CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles drivers who text were 23 times more likely to have a “safety critical event” than nontexters.

FMCSA wants your input. A texting ban might seem a “no brainer,” but coming up with a clear, fair, and effective rule is harder than it first looks. For the next 15 days, Regulation Room users will be learning about and discussing the issues:

What are the risks of texting? (Today’s topic)

Which drivers would the new rule cover? (It’s complicated)

What behavior would be prohibited? (More than you think of as texting)

What’s the plan for consequences? (Just how do you enforce a texting ban?)

What’s the rule likely to cost? (Did FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) get the numbers right, especially for small companies?)

After the discussion, you can help put together a summary to go to the agency and, if you think there’s still more to say, join other people in writing additional comments to FMCSA.

The Details:

Why start with texting? The increasing use of cell phones and other electronic devices by drivers as well as passengers has focused national attention on the growing problem of distracted driving. For FMCSA (the agency in the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOTDepartment of Transportation) responsible for CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles safety), this rulemaking is the first step in addressing the problem for the millions of truckers, bus drivers, and other CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles operators within its jurisdiction. (We’ll talk about which drivers are, and aren’t, covered by the proposed rule in our next post.) In its official Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMNotice of Proposed Rulemaking: the official document announcing and explaining the proposed rule) FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule)explained that texting involves all three major types of distraction: visual, physical, and cognitive (mental). The texter’s eyes are off the road, his/her hands are off the wheel, and his/her mental focus is on something besides driving.

In the agency’s view, this makes texting an especially dangerous form of distraction. The Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (a group of experts from the motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees industry, safety groups, and law enforcement agencies set up to advise FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) on safety issues) agrees: Its March 2009 report on motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees safety urged FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) to adopt an anti-texting rule as part of broader regulation against the problem of distracted driving. According to the NPRM, FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) is planning additional rulemakings on other uses of cell phones and on electronic devices like GPS. (A later post will explain how the definition of “texting” tries to exclude such activities from the current rulemaking).

31Public, expert and industry concern. FMCSA noted that broad agreement already exists about the inappropriateness and danger of texting while driving:

An AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety survey found that 94% of drivers think it’s unacceptable to text or email while driving, and nearly 87% consider such behavior a very serious threat to their personal safety.

DOT’s Distracted Driving Summit brought together safety experts and advocacy groups, researchers, federal and state elected officials, law enforcement personnel, and representatives of the transportation and telecommunications industries. The discussion demonstrated need and widespread support for banning texting while driving.

A CBS News/New York Times poll reported that 90% of Americans think texting while driving should be outlawed, and more than 94% of those who admit they text or email while driving believe this makes them somewhat more likely to be involved in an accident.

The American Trucking Association (ATAAmerican Trucking Associations) has urged legislation to prohibit all drivers from texting. According to a survey conducted by ATA’s Safety Policy Committee, 67% of respondents already have a company policy restricting or limiting use of portable electronic devices while driving.

Almost all public transit agencies already prohibit drivers from using electronic devices and/or from texting specifically.

43The VTTI Virginia Tech Transportation Institute data on distraction risks. In 2004, a motorcoach filled with students going to Mount Vernon collided with the underside of an Alexandria, VA U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, which insures some mortgages bridge overpass; the driver had failed to move out of the low-clearance lane while talking on his cellphone. Investigation of this accident eventually led FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) to hire the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTIVirginia Tech Transportation Institute) to investigate the role of driver distraction in “safety critical events” (crashes, near-crashes and lane departures) involving CMVs. The Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations study placed video recorders and sensors in trucks driven by more than 200 different drivers and collected 3 million miles of data. It found that 71 percent of crashes, 46 percent of near-crashes, and 60 percent of all safety critical events involved drivers engaged in non-driving tasks such as texting, looking at a map, writing on a notepad, or reading. Here is a summary of the study’s results:

(Click to open)

In this table,

“Odds Ratio” is the risk that a driver engaging in the task will be involved in a safety critical event, as compared with an undistracted driver. (Confidence intervals for these Odds Ratios can be found at Study pp xx-xxi). A texting driver is 23.2 times more likely to be involved in a crash, near-crash, or lane departure than a driver who is not texting. Texting drivers took their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds. In this much time, a truck going 55 mph travels approximately the length of a football field.

The “Population Attributable Risk Percentage” takes into account how often drivers engaged in the particular task. The low PAR for texting means that drivers in the study did not text very often.

Because texting is a high risk activity, more safety critical events could be expected if texting while driving increases. The VTTI Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study observed driver behavior between November 2005 and May 2007. A wireless industry survey conducted by CTIA,The Wireless Associationreported that 740 billion text messages were sent during the first six months of 2009 – almost double the number reported in 2008 and a 2,200% increase from the first six months of 2005. These figures show that texting in general has greatly increased in recent years, although they don’t break out texting that occurred while driving.

FMCSA considers these results consistent with the VTTI Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study, although it notes that they involved smaller samples, simulator rather than on-road driving, and/or young drivers. (For those interested in data quality issues, FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) provides peer review information about many of these studies, including the VTII study, in footnotes in the NPRM).

65Help FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) get it right. You may have seen news reports last month that the Secretary of Transportation “banned texting” by CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles drivers. Actually, there wasn’t a new federal rule adopted at that time. (In general, agencies can’t make new rules without a long process that involves advance notice and public comment. See Learn About Rulemaking.) What really happened in February was the Secretary’s announcing DOTs interpretation that existing federal motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees regulations could already cover texting as an unsafe driving practice.

Whether or not texting violates general CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles safety rules, FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) wants to write a clear, detailed regulation that addresses texting specifically. You can help the agency get the new texting rule right. In each post, in addition to summarizing what FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) says in the NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: the official document announcing and explaining the proposed rule on the issue of the day, we’ll flag places where it explicitly asks the public for help.

On the risks of texting, FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) is looking for additional data or studies about texting while driving. In particular, it’s asking for any data about the frequency of texting by drivers in general, or CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles drivers in particular. It’s also asking for motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees companies’ experiences in implementing policies on their drivers’ use of electronic devices.

Have you ever submitted a comment in a federal rulemaking?:YesNoNot sure

Click to read the Terms and Conditions & Statement of Consent

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Register

Agreement

Terms and Conditions, Privacy Notice, Site Use/Community Guidelines and Statement of Consent

Please read this document carefully. Because The Regulation Room is part of a research program at Cornell University, you will be asked to agree to the following terms and conditions of site use and consent to participate in the research of which this site is a part.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

The Regulation Room: Technology to Support Citizen Understanding and Participation in Regulatory Policymaking

This site is part of a research study in how citizens can become more effective in helping government craft better regulations. It is being conducted by researchers in the Cornell University Law School, Computing and Information Science program, and Scheinman Institute for Conflict Resolution, in cooperation with the federal agencies whose proposed rules are featured on this site.

What the study is about

This study uses existing and new technologies and methods to help people develop and communicate their preferences about federal regulatory policy. A moderated discussion environment allows users to learn the details of a federal rulemaking, discuss specific parts of the agency’s proposal, and react to what others’ say about it Our goal is to contribute to the existing research on electronic rulemaking by (1) constructing a large scale public participation web environment; (2) observing group and individual behavioral tendencies in that environment; and (3) developing natural language processing methods to assist in analysis of the information submitted.

Content submitted to the site may be extracted, summarized, and analyzed. At the close of the official comment period for the regulation, summaries and analyses, as well as all content submitted to this site, will be offered to the federal agency developing the rule, to assist them in their decision making.

You may read the site without participating in the study. To do this, we require no information from you.

To participate in discussion of proposed rules, endorse, or otherwise add content to the site, we require you to register. This involves picking a username and password, providing an email address, and agreeing to these terms and conditions. We will use your email only for the following purposes, and will in no event provide it to any other person or entity: (1) password recovery; (2) notices relating to comments you submit or to site events that are significant to continued participation in the discussion; (3) request to participate in a survey about your experience using the site. You may opt out of receiving such notices and/or may decline to participate in the survey. If you chose to register, you’ll have the option of including your real name and a brief bio. You’ll also have the option of making your real name and bio publically viewable. Providing your real name, including a bio, and making either of these public are entirely voluntary.

What we will ask you to do

We encourage users to participate in the rulemaking process by discussing issues in rule, raising questions, and responding to other users’ reactions. Our researchers will summarize this discussion and you will be able to suggest changes to that summary. You may also be able to respond to polls about the rule. The final summary of discussion will be submitted by our researchers to the federal agency for inclusion in its decision-making process. You may have the opportunity to join with other users in drafting joint comments in addition to this summary. You will have the opportunity to “sign on” to such comments drafted by other users. These joint comments will also be submitted to the agency by our researchers. We will not report to the agency any individually identifying information that is not publicly available on the site.

Short web-based questionnaires will appear when you submit content to our site. When you initially register, you be asked about your experience in participating in federal rulemakings and about the nature of your interest in that rule. This information will help us determine the effectiveness of the site and may be used in summarizing and analyzing the discussion for the agency. We may contact you using the email address you provide to ask you about your experiences using Regulation Room and how these experiences relate to your usage of the internet for other purposes and your other experiences with government participation. Response to any questions for this purpose is completely voluntary.

Risks and benefits

The goal of the project is to improve communication between government regulators and the public for the purposes of creating regulation that better meets the needs of the public at reduced cost. Individuals would generally participate because they are interested in more effective regulation, reduced cost, or both.

The principle risk of participation is that an individual might choose to provide sensitive personal information even though we do not require such information and warn users against including such information. The Profile page allows users to provide their real name and a brief bio, and to make both publically viewable. Users might include other personal data, such as address, telephone number, employer, and social security number. This information could then be viewed and used by others.

We will attempt to keep web site server log data and optional web survey data protected against public disclosure.

Compensation

There is no compensation for participating.

Taking part is voluntary

Taking part in this study is completely voluntary. You do not have to reply to any emails, and your participation or withdrawal will not affect your current or future relationship with Cornell University. If you decide to take part, you are free to withdraw at any time.

Modification of Terms and Conditions of Use

Cornell University reserves the right to revise these Terms and Conditions of Use at any time by updating this page. Your continued use of the site constitutes your agreement to comply with such revisions, so you should visit this page from time to time.

PRIVACY NOTICE

In any sort of report we make public and/or provide to the Federal agency we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify you unless you have elected to make such information publicly visible on the site.

Please note that material you post on Regulation Room is provided voluntarily; it will be publicly visible on the web site and might be publicly disclosed in a rulemaking docket.

SITEUSE/COMMUNITY GUIDELINES

We welcome your use of our site and participation in our research. To keep the experience a positive one for all our users, we ask that you follow the rules outlined below. By submitting content to this site, you are agreeing to the following rules:

You are fully responsible for the content you post. You may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates someone else’s right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, or that is otherwise inappropriate. Furthermore, you may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Language intended to intimidate or to incite violence will not be tolerated.

We may monitor user-generated content and we reserve the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that, in our sole judgment, violates these rules. Repeated violation of these rules may result in your being banned from the site.

By posting material to this site, you represent that you have the legal right to reproduce, adapt, display, and distribute this material to others. Neither Cornell University nor any other person or entity responsible for this site will be responsible for posted information that may infringe on a third party’s copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property rights.

We may summarize and/or republish the content of your comments. By posting you agree that your comments may be summarized, analyzed, and republished online and in print.

You may use this site only for non-commercial purposes. This site prohibits any actions to solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity.

You may not interrupt, or attempt to interrupt, the operation of the site in any way. Unauthorized use or modification of any information stored on the site may result in criminal and/or civil prosecution under federal, state and local law. You may not to use the site to carry out any unauthorized alteration of any data or information on the site or to conduct any activity that infringes on the copyright, patent, trademark, service mark or other rights of any person or entity. You may not restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying any service conducted on the site.

Cornell University reserves the right to limit or deny your access to the site or take other appropriate action if you violate any provision of these Guidelines, or if you conduct any activity that violates the rights of any person or entity or that we in our sole discretion deem unlawful, offensive, threatening, abusive, or potentially harmful or malicious.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS

If you have questions about these provisions, this site or the research program it is part of, you can contact Mary Newhart, Executive Director, Cornell e-Regulatory Research Initiative, mjn3@cornell.edu, 607-255-3660.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a subject in this study, you may contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at 607-255-5138 or access their website at http://www.irb.cornell.edu/. You may also report your concerns or complaints anonymously through the Ethicspoint website or by calling toll free at 1-866-293-3077. Ethicspoint is an independent organization that serves as a liaison between the University and the person bringing the complaint so that anonymity can be ensured.

If you agree to these terms and conditions, we will e-mail you a link to a copy of this consent form for your records.

This form will be kept by the researchers for at least three years beyond the end of the study and was approved by the IRB September 30, 2009; revisions on February 19, 2010, April 12 2010, February 16, 2011, and August 18, 2011.

STATEMENT OF CONSENT

I have read the above information, I am at least 18 years of age, I agree to these Terms and Conditions and Site Use/Community Guidelines, and I consent to participate in the research program of which Regulation Room is a part.

Agree

Disagree

I have never seen a more poorly deisgned site where it is hard to guess what and how to provide feedback.

One must have the patience of Job to add a comment on this very badly created website. The Webmaster should be ashamed of him/herself. Take some classes to learn how to do it right!

will not accept my comment!

site is poorly designed and NOT user friendly. Too much is counterintuitive, and directions are muddled at best.

Wow, this is a really bad site - I've registered and tried to confirm my registration but I keep getting a blank page that says "done"?? When I go to the site to try and sign in I get a statement that says "this account does not exist"????

This is a horribly designed site. It took me 5 minutes just to find the proposed rules that we're supposed to comment on. There should be a "Proposed Rules" button on the main menu bar at the top of the page, not something unclearly labeled "Rule Dashboard" off to the side (with the type running vertically, so it's hard to read). A properly designed Web site should be intuitive. It shouldn't need to include videos that explain how to use it. You do a nice job of explaining the proposed rules. That same clarity should extend to the design of the site itself.
Steve Millburg
Homewood, AL
stevemillburg@yahoo.com

This website isn't working correctly. I'm logged in and when I click on the box to start submitting a comment, a pop up comes up telling me to log in - I do so, click on the box, and the log in pop up comes up again. The comment box behind gets grayed out and there's no way to type in anything! I've tried it on three different web browsers and it happens on all three.

Slow script prevented me from submitting comments

This site is extremelety difficult to use. I try to make a comment, it asks for a log-in, I log-in, I try to make a comment, it asks for a log-in. This is Groundhog Day. Just give me a fricking e-mail address and I'll mail in my comments.

Says "Page not nound" when I try to activate my account from the link in your e-mail to me.

This site is seriously buggy. I have now entered my comments two times and neither time have they been accepted. The pop-up windows come up at random times. I wasn't allowed to edit at one point. This site has potential but it needs serious work.